Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta – Wrong Interpretations

Revised October 25, 2016; April 11, 2017; September 13, 2017; January 26, 2018; May 25, 2019; August 6, 2019; January 11,2020

Introduction

1. No other factor has contributed to help keep Nibbāna hidden in the past many hundreds of years than the incorrect interpretations of anicca as just “impermanence” and anatta as just “no-self.” If one can find even a single instance in the Pāli Tipiṭaka (not translations) that describe anicca and anatta that way, please let me know at [email protected] Also, before quoting English translations of the Tipiṭaka, please read the post, “Misinterpretation of Anicca and Anatta by Early European Scholars.”

I consider this series of posts on “anicca, dukkha, anatta” to be the most important at the website. Reading the posts in the given order could be very beneficial.

A Buddha comes to this world to reveal three words and eight letters (in Pāli). “Attakkarā thīnapadā Sambuddhena pakāsithā, na hī sīla vatan hotu uppajjāti Tathāgatā.” That means “a Buddha (Tathāgata) is born NOT just to show how to live a moral life, but to reveal three words with eight letters to the world.” So far, I have not seen this verse in the Tipiṭaka. It is likely to have been in an old commentary.

These three words with eight letters are anicca, dukkha, anatta. (when written in Sinhala/Pāli: අනිච්ච දුක්ඛ අනත්ත but with last two letters in each term in the “old script” combined to become one, so the number of letters becomes eight instead of 11. I was able to find only අනත්‍ථ for අනත්ත, but you can see how four letters become three there).

4. Therefore, a good understanding of the words anicca, dukkha, anatta is critical. If one sticks to incorrect interpretation of these three words, no matter how much effort one exerts, there is no possibility of attaining the Sōtapanna stage. Even in most Thēravada English texts, these three words have incorrect translations as impermanence, suffering, and “no-soul” or “no-self.” The correct meanings are the following.

Nothing in this world can be maintained to one’s satisfaction (anicca).

When one strives to achieve that, it leads to suffering (dukkha). However, many people try to gain “happiness” by resorting to immoral deeds, and then end up in the apāyā. That is how one becomes genuinely helpless.

Striving to achieve the impossible (i.e., seeking happiness in worldly things), only leads to suffering. Thus, one’s efforts are not only unfruitful, but one becomes helpless in the rebirth process (anatta).

Pāli Words for Impermanence Are “Adduwan” or “Aniyata“

5. The Pāli word for impermanence is NOT anicca; it is adduwan or aniyata. For example, “Jeevitan aniyatam, Maranan niyatam” means, “life is not permanent, death is.”

“addhuvam jeevitam, dhuvaṃ maranam” means the same thing.

Therefore, the critical mistake was in translating the original Pāli word anicca to Sanskrit as “anitya,” which does mean impermanence.

Anatta Is Not “Self” or “No-Self”

6. Now let us examine the damage done by translating the original Pāli word anatta to Sanskrit as “anātma.”

At the time of the Buddha also, there were two opposing views on the idea of a “self.” One camp believed in an unchanging “soul” (ātma) associated with a being. This camp thus corresponds to the major religions of the world today with the concept that when one dies, one’s soul goes to heaven or hell.

The opposing camp argued that there is “no-soul” (anātma) and that when one dies, there is nothing that survives the death. This view is the materialistic view today that our minds arise from matter, and thus, there is nothing that survives death.

However, one has a choice of how to respond to an external stimulus. Therefore, it is also incorrect to say that there is “no-self.”

Furthermore, there is continuity at death based on cause-and-effect (Paṭicca samuppāda; see, “Paṭicca samuppāda“).

The new living being is a continuation of the old living being, just as an older man is a continuation of the process from the baby stage. Change is there at every MOMENT, based on cause-and-effect. The “new” is dependent on the “old.”

They Are Related to Each Other

“if something is anicca, dukkha arises, and one becomes helpless (anatta).” Note that “yaṃ” and “yad” have the same meaning and are used interchangeably.In the same way, “yadidaṃ” comes from “yad idaṃ.”

9. Now let us see what happens if we take anicca to be impermanent and anatta to be “no-soul.”Then the above verse reads, “if something is not permanent, suffering arises, and because of that one becomes “no-self.”

Many people take a human body as “it,” and say that since the body is impermanent, suffering arises. But the suttā mentioned above describe this for all six internal senses (Ajjhattanicca or Ajjhatta AniccaSutta) and for everything external that is sensed by the six sense faculties (Bāhiranicca or Bāhira Anicca Sutta). Therefore, that verse holds for anything and everything “in this world.”

Thus if a headache does not become permanent, it is meaningless to say it has no self.

But there are many things in the world, if become permanent, would lead to happiness: health, wealth, association with someone liked, moving away from someone disliked, etc.

10. Now the opposite of the above statement must be correct, too (in mathematical logic, this is not correct generally, but in this particular case, it can be shown to be right. It is due to the assumption that “dukkha” depends only on “nicca” or “anicca” and no other factor); see, “Logical Proof that Impermanence is Incorrect Translation of Anicca.”

Let us consider the incorrect interpretations that say:

“if something is permanent, suffering does not arise, and because of that, it implies a “self.”

If one has a permanent headache or a sickness, how can that stop suffering? And in what sense a “self” arise?

There are many things in this world if it becomes permanent, would lead to suffering: a disease, poverty, association with someone disliked, moving away from a loved one, etc.

Thus we can see that anicca and anatta do not mean impermanence and “no-self.”

Everyone Knows Anything in This World is Impermanent

11. Permanence and impermanence are inseparable PROPERTIES of living beings, objects, and events. On the other hand, nicca/anicca are PERCEPTIONS IN ONE’S MIND about them.

We cannot maintain anything to our satisfaction (including “our” own body) in the long run, and that is anicca. And because of that, we become distraught, and that is dukkha. And since we are unable to prevent this sequence of events, we are truly helpless in the long run (nothing of real substance left in the end.) That is anatta.

Here is a video that illustrates the concept of anicca clearly:

We need to realize that we all will go through this inevitable change as we get old. No matter how hard we try, it is not possible to maintain ANYTHING to our satisfaction. It is the nature of “this world”: anicca.

Now, of course, any of these celebrities (or their fans) will be saddened to see that comparison in the video above. They have not been able to maintain their bodies to their satisfaction. However, a person who is in bad terms with any of these celebrities could be happy to see those pictures, since he/she would like to see something terrible to happen to that celebrity.

12. Thus “impermanence” is inevitable; it is a property of anything in this world. But “anicca” is a perception in someone’s mind. That perception CAN be changed; that is how one gets rid of suffering.

In the above case, celebrities’ bodies ARE impermanent; but that did not necessarily cause suffering to ALL. It caused pain to only those who did not like them getting old. If they had any enemies, those would be happy to see them losing their “good looks.”

These pictures provide the visual impact that we do not usually get. We don’t see changes in ourselves because the change is gradual.

13. A Buddha is not needed to show that impermanence is an inherent characteristic of our universe. Scientists are well aware of that, but they have not attained Nibbāna. Anicca is a profound concept with several meanings, and they are all related. Here are three ways to look at it:

14. Finally, the Buddha has said, “Sabbe Dhammā anattā.” So, what does “all dhammā are “no-self” mean(if anatta meant “no-self”)?Dhammā means “to bear” and include those kammic energies that can bring in the future vipāka including future rebirths. We strive to make such Dhammā which will only bring NET suffering in the future. Nothing in this world is of any real value in the end. That is anatta nature.

Possible Historical Reasons for Mistranslations

15. We can see the origins of some of these incorrect translations by looking at how Buddha Dhamma was transmitted over time. For details, see “Historical Background.”

For about 500 years after the Parinibbåna of the Buddha, the Pāli Tipiṭaka was transmitted orally, from generation to generation of bhikkhus, who faithfully passed down the Pāli Canon. Of course, it had been DESIGNED for easy oral transmission.

17. When Rhys Davis and others started doing those English translations, they were heavily influenced by Sanskrit Mahayaṃa sutras, as well by Vedic literature. Think about it: when the Europeans first started discovering all these different Pāli and Sanskrit documents, they must have been overwhelmed by the complexities.

For example, They ASSUMED that “anatta” was the same as “anātma,” which is a Sanskrit word, with a different meaning of “no-self.” Similarly, they took “anicca” to mean the same as Sanskrit “anitya,” which does mean “impermanent.”

It Will Take Time to Untangle These Issues

18. The worst was that even contemporary Sinhala scholars like Malasekara (who was a doctoral student of Rhys Davis), “learned” Buddhism from the Europeans, and thus started using wrong interpretations. Other Sinhala scholars like Kalupahana and Jayathilake also learned “Buddhism” at universities in the United Kingdom.

Following the original translations by Rhys Davis, Eugene Burnouf, Olcott, and others, those Sinhala scholars also write books in both English and Sinhala. Of course, scholars in other Buddhist countries did the same in their languages, and the incorrect interpretations spread throughout the whole world.

To correct this grave problem, we need to go back to the Tipiṭaka in Pāli and start the process there.

Pāli suttā should not be translated word-to-word. Most of the suttā are condensed and written in style conducive for oral transmission; see, “Sutta – Introduction.”

Commentaries were written to explain critical concepts in the Tipiṭaka, and only three of those original commentaries have survived. We need to rely heavily on those three: Patisambhidamagga, Petakopadesa, and Nettippakarana.

Instead, most people rely on incorrect commentaries written in more recent years, especially Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga. For details, see “Buddhaghosa and Visuddhimagga – Historical Background.” However, Buddhaghosa did not change the meanings of the words anicca, dukkha, anatta. That is likely to have happened in more recent times, as I explained above). But he incorporated many other Hindu concepts like breath meditation and kasina meditation; see, “Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga – A Focused Analysis.”

19. It is also important to note that mass printing was not available until recent years, and became common only in the 1800s; see, “Printing press.”

Thus mass production of books became possible only with the new printing presses that came out in the 1800s. By that time, key concepts had been mistranslated.

In the early days, Tipiṭaka was written on specially prepared leaves and needed to be re-written by hand every 100-200 years before they degraded. So, we must be grateful to the bhikkhus in Sri Lanka who did this dutifully over almost 2000 years.

Other Related Issues

20. I came across another problem in a recent online forum. People are debating on the meanings of words “anatta” (අනත්ත in Sinhala) and “anattha” (අනත්ථ in Sinhala). They mean the same, but with more emphasis is added in the latter word.

So, most people write it as “anatta.” It does not matter how one writes it, as long as one understands the meaning as “with no refuge” or “without essence,” and NOT “no-self.”

But it does mean “it is not fruitful to take anything in this world to be mine.”

21. Two more main misconceptions are prevalent today. They not only block the path to Nibbāna but are miccha diṭṭhi that could be responsible for rebirth in the apāyā. I am not trying to scare anyone, but “making adhamma to be dhamma is a serious offense.”

22. All these misconceptions are not the fault of current Theravadins; they have been handed down for many hundreds of years, as explained in the “Historical Background.“ However, it makes no sense to adhere to them when substantial evidence is presented against them, per the above posts, and many others on this website.

Of course, no one should be able to insist, “this is the only truth, and nothing else is the truth.” But the truth can be verified to one’s satisfaction by critically examining the evidence. I am open to discuss any valid contrary evidence. We need to sort out the truth for the benefit of all.

23. Finally, it may not be possible to comprehend anicca, dukkha, anatta straight away. One must first follow the mundane path to learn basic concepts like kamma and rebirth.

24. Anicca and anatta are complex Pāli words that cannot be translated into English directly. There is no English word that can convey the meaning of anicca (or anatta). The following subsections discuss those two complex Pāli words: